In the absence of a scientific poll of hockey fans on their feelings about 3-on-3 overtime as we approach the end of its first calendar month, we’re going to guess it breaks down as follows:

Locals lose? “What a stupid format!”

Locals win? “I can’t remember when I had more fun watching hockey!”

This same standard evidently applies to players, like Winnipeg’s Dustin Byfuglien, who called it “a terrible part of hockey” after losing in OT at home to Tampa.

Ottawa’s Norris Trophy-winning defenceman Erik Karlsson, meanwhile, said the 3-on-3 format is “boring” and felt “more like a bag skate” to him and other big-minutes players who were pressed into still more ice time in the extra session.

We should point out here the reason so many minutes are added to Karlsson’s already heavy workload is the Senators not only can’t win in overtime, they can’t lose, either.

All four of their regulation ties have gone the distance in OT, all the way to the shootout, and three of those at home.

That just about makes the Sens the least interesting overtime team in the league.

Still, Karlsson has a point, although he should keep in mind not every team’s solution to 3-on-3 is to play one or two great players until they drop.

Some teams are more democratic. We’re thinking here of the Vancouver Canucks, who are a league-worst 0-4 in overtime and, at the time they were scored upon Thursday by Dallas’s Jamie Benn, had the following three players on the ice: Yannick Weber, Jannik Hansen and Bo Horvat.

Not an Edler, Tanev, Sedin, Sedin, Sutter, Burrows or Vrbata to be found, when the decisive goal beat Ryan Miller (0-3 in OT).

Here’s some numbers to chew on.

This time last season, with 4-on-4 overtime, 60 per cent of tie games had gone to the shootout. This year: 31 per cent.

Entering Friday night, one of every five games played had gone to overtime. Of those games, 20 of 29, or 69 per cent had been settled short of the shootout, which was the whole point of the rule change.

It has resulted in shorter games, because the average 3-on-3 session has ended in 2:04. Five games have been settled in under a minute, including two by Chicago’s Jonathan Toews, two nights apart, the first in 17 seconds at home to Tampa, the second 51 seconds in to beat Anaheim; both, unbelievably, 1-0 finals.

None of those great players, I’m guessing, complained about the extra ice time.

The 3-on-3 format has succeeded in ways even the NHL did not envision; namely, the kind of game it most often produces.

Its critics hate the idea of hockey without big hits and finished checks, either of which can be dangerous in overtime.

This is understandable: the game has become so micro-coached that the loss of structure, of control, of tight checking, doesn’t even feel like the hockey we have been brainwashed into accepting as the norm.

Once upon a time, kids (you may not believe this), goals routinely were scored when players were caught at the end of long shifts, and fatigue led to coverage mistakes and odd-man rushes.

This happened 5-on-5, by the way, before anyone ever heard of finishing a check, clogging shooting lanes or the left-wing lock.

What has happened in the new overtime format is exactly what we hoped would happen, and it’s glorious. Coaches have not yet solved the puzzle. A few have tried to play keep-away with the puck, possessing it at all costs, but at any point a shot that misses the net or a seemingly inconsequential turnover can be fatal.

They have largely lost the ability to keep shifts down to 35 seconds, because of the switch of ends after regulation time that makes each bench a full zone further away from each team’s own goal, and therefore makes line changes more hazardous.

Players get caught out, tired, and they get outskated by a fresher player who happened to catch a line change at a fortuitous moment. Luck, yes luck, plays a part.

Is 3-on-3 the fairest way of deciding who gets two points and who gets one? Probably not. Endless overtime would be fairest, but who’d go for that in the regular season?

Not the players.

“It’s a tough way to lose,” Byfuglien’s Jets teammate Bryan Little said after the loss to Tampa. “But the shootout is an even worse way to lose.”

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.